Você está na página 1de 34





The Vesti-Kuranty (V-K)1 , the first pre-Petrine hand-written Russian newspapers, compiled at the Diplomatic Chancellery ( ) in
Moscow, are a highly attractive linguistic source for the study of 17th-century
Russian v e r n a c u l a r language, as opposed to the much more common Hybrid Russian Church Slavonic idiom2 , represented in the majority of all available
literary monuments from that period3 . Five printed volumes (V-K IV, with texts
from 16001660) appeared in Moscow between 1972 and 1996; the work on the
next (sixth) volume with texts from 1660, 16641670 and some supplementary
translations from 1655 and 1656 is expected to be finished by 200120024.
A question which, at least in our opinion, has not drawn enough attention is:
How reliable were the Russian translations, i.e. did they render the source texts
content in a correct and comprehensible way? A. I. Sobolevskij characterized the
translators at in the following way: , , ; , -, ,
; , , ,
( 1903, 43). Although this quotation relates above all to translated
b o o k s, Sobolevskijs verdict about the quality of other types of texts is no more
merciful: XVII . , (ibid.). Sobolevskijs characterization
has stamped opinions about the quality of the translations made at
as being awkward for several generations of Russian scholars.
In this paper we will examine in detail the translation technique of the Russian
(and try to find out whether Sobolevskijs characterization is
appropriate), mainly on the basis of one concrete text, the Procuration to the
Spanish envoys for the Peace Treaty between Spain and the States-General of
the Netherlands of January 1648 at Mnster (referred to below as the Spanish
Proxy). There are several reasons for this choice:

Russian Linguistics 25: 209 242, 2001.

2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.



1. The exact edition which was used at is identified, which

means that not only do we have access to the general text of this document, but we
can even analyze such details as the potential influence of punctuation, printing
fonts used in the current edition etc.
2. The Russian translation is made from a Dutch version, but the Dutch version in
its turn is a translation of a Spanish text, also available to us in different variants.
By comparing versions in all three languages we can draw certain conclusions
regarding the extent to which inaccuracies in the Russian translation are due to
mistakes already existing in the Dutch source, and to what extent they can be
charged to the Russian translators.
3. This Russian translation comprises about four hand-written pages, the Dutch
source text a little less than two printed pages, the Spanish original three handwritten pages. The limited size of this document makes it possible to scrutinize
both the Dutch and the Russian translations in great detail5 .
In some cases we will also resort to examples from the translation of other
documents related to the Treaty, e.g. the Preface and the Procuration to the
Dutch envoys (the Dutch Proxy), although these items are not second-hand
translations; the origin of certain expressions, however, is Spanish.

2.1. General remarks

For a long time it was generally believed that the first Russian newspaper
translations dated from about 1621, but later research has shown that such
translations were made from the end of the 16th century; the oldest text included
in the edition of V-K is from 16006. At the beginning, the acquisition of news
reports from Western Europe was very irregular, but gradually (from about 1631)
they seemed to arrive at more regular intervals; special paid agents had as one
of their tasks to deliver newspapers. Some of the best-known of these agents
or correspondents were the Dutch merchant Isaac Abrahamszoon Massa, the
Swedish residents in Moscow Peter Krusbjrn and Justus Filimonatus7 , and the
English merchant John Hebdon.
The hand-written Russian newsletters compiled at were
first called r; the term appears only once in each of the first
two volumes of V-K, on the b a c k of manuscript leaves, so that we must admit
the possibility that these notes have been added later. In the third volume this
term does not appear at all, and its first occurrence within a translation (or: in
the introduction to a translation) is found in a text from 1649:
I (V-K IV,
40.117). In the fifth volume of V-K (with texts from the 1650s) there are nine



ocurrences; in the not yet published translations from the 1660s we have found
more than 150. Probably the term was first used exclusively when speaking about
Dutch newspapers (which often had the word Courante in their title; cf. Courante
uyt Italien ende Duytslant; Ordinaris Middel-weeckse Courante etc.), whereas
the meaning foreign (almost always German or Dutch) newsletter or newspaper
dates from a later period (16501660); eventually the term came to designate
the Muscovite translations and compilations of foreign newspapers (Waugh 1973,
105). The compound term Vesti-Kuranty is a modern name, invented by the editors
of the printed books.
2.2. The translation workshop at the Diplomatic Chancellery
The access to regular and accurate news from abroad was of great importance
especially from the 1640s (essentially the time of Aleksej Mixajlovic)8.
During the first decades of kuranty, the name of the person who had delivered
a news item was usually mentioned at the beginning of the Russian translation;
cf. the following example from the first manuscript page of V-K II (1.114):
AI . It is typical for these early texts that the language of the source
text is not mentioned. During the 1650s, the type of introductory information
changes: it becomes something of an exception for an individual who had delivered a newspaper to the Diplomatic Chancellery to be mentioned; instead, from
now on the Russian newspaper translations start to indicate the language of the
source text in a more regular way. A typical introduction from the fifties and
later is the following: [] K []
(V-K V, 25.22) or the concise: (34.22).
In 1665, when regular postal connections between Moscow and Riga9 had been
established (by Jan van Sweeden10; cf. 1913, 60) under the Privy
Chancellery ( ), i.e. as a priority activity under the direct supervision of the Tsar, the means of acquiring newspapers from the West improved
considerably, and they became more and more numerous, since it would only take
about eight days for a letter (or a newspaper) to get from Smolensk to Moscow, or
1112 days from Riga to Moscow (ibid., p. 63). From the late 1660s, especially
from 16681669, a very large amount of German and Dutch newspapers is still
preserved at RGADA, many of them with translators notes like on
them11 .
The kuranty were usually produced in one or two copies, one first draft and a
final version. When the fair copies had been read to the Tsar and the boyars, they
were moved to the chancellery archives, where they were kept as state secrets12 .



The first drafts still preserved are also printed in the editions in the appendix if
there also exists a fair copy, otherwise in the main part of the V-K-edition. Usually,
however, the draft has been lost or just thrown away; we do not even know to
what extent drafts were made. In at least one case we found a translators note on
a German newspaper, telling us that a draft copy was not made: on Knigsberger
Ordinari PostZeitung No 32 from 1670 (, 155, 1, 1670,
2, . 34) we found the following note on the bottom margin of the title page:
S. 13 . Quite often, however,
there exists o n l y a draft copy. Of course, the fair copy might have been lost in
these cases, but there is also another possibility: maybe in some cases an editor
at decided that a certain text was not interesting enough
for the Tsar, and a fair copy was never made. So, for instance, the translation of
the Osnabrck Peace Treaty exists only in a draft version more than 100 handwritten pages about all the details the German Empire and Sweden agreed upon
in 1648!
At the beginning of the kuranty period, until around the end of the forties,
usually whole (or almost whole) newspapers14 were translated and even whole
peace treaties, every single article: Brmsebro 1645; Mnster 164815; Osnabrck
1648 (76, 52 and 102 manuscript pages respectively). Later on, from about the
fifties (when the system of newspaper acquisition had improved considerably),
a selection was being made, i.e. usually one, two or three articles were chosen
for translation16. From about this time not only a steadily increasing number
of articles from each newspaper was neglected, but the chosen articles were no
longer translated from the first to the last word, as usually had been the case
until the forties. Sometimes the news articles (or, within an article, the relevant
sentence(s)) are marked with black in the margins of the original newspapers; cf.
also the small marks on the facsimile of one of the four Dutch newspapers from
1646, printed in V-K III, on p. 401. After the Westphalian Peace Treaties we do not
find any more instances where complete treaties or whole long pamphlets about a
specific event (comprising at least a dozen hand-written pages) have been printed
in the edition of V-K (including the volume in preparation, V-K VI); whether such
translations existed, but were not filed together with the kuranty, is a question well
worth studying, but the issue is beyond the scope of this paper.
2.3. The originals of the Russian translations
The V-K contain for the most part translations of Western European p r i n t e d
texts, e.g. news pamphlets, political pamphlets, peace treaties, regular (usually
weekly) newspapers etc. Since those were printed in at least several hundred
copies, potentially all of them can still be found in European libraries and archives
in fact, the originals of all major Russian texts, comprising more than 56



manuscript pages, have already been located and to a very large extent described;
as to minor text units, such as individual newspaper articles, often just a few
sentences, much detective work has still to be done, and many scholarly lives
would have to be devoted to this task before the originals of every single Russian
manuscript page are actually found an aim which will probably never be
reached17. According to our rough estimate, about 65% of the texts published
in V-K IV are translations from German source texts; about 15% are translated
from Dutch, 10% from Swedish and 10% from other languages, such as English,
Danish, Polish, Latin, French and Greek18. The reason why it is still so difficult
to give more exact figures is that the Russian texts in V-K IIV usually do not
mention the language of the source text, and for the most part we can say for
sure which language a certain translation is made from only when the source
text is identified. For the (yet unpublished) kuranty from the 1660s and later,
when the source language usually is indicated, the proportions have changed. For
example, for the period 16601670, which will be covered by the next volume of
the series (V-K VI), almost all translations are from German and Dutch printed
(in rare cases hand-written) newspapers; Swedish as a source language seems
to have disappeared, and instead, from March 1666, for the first time we find
a translation from a printed Polish newspaper19 (or pamphlet), and even from
a L a t i n one20 (1670). Especially from the 1660s onward, the Russian archive
RGADA houses a lot of German and (albeit far fewer) Dutch newspapers, many
of which have been (partially) translated into Russian. Altogether for 16661670,
a period which one of the authors of this paper had the opportunity to scrutinize
systematically in March 2000, 419 printed German newspapers, 104 printed in
Dutch and the already mentioned single issue in Latin are kept in RGADAs
Fond 155, () (
). (The comparatively few duplicates and the newsletters have not
been counted.) More than half of the foreign newspapers are marked with notes
like , , (apart from notes like ()
or ()21 ), but far from all translations are still extant.
2.4. The translators at the Diplomatic Chancellery
According to Sobolevskij, the translators at had many different tasks: , :
, , , [. . .] ,
, . ,
( 1903, 42). We can only guess that their work-



ing conditions were quite stressful, since it was important that the foreign news
came to the Tsars knowledge as soon as possible. From cases when we know both
the date of delivery of a newspaper and the date of translation we can see that at
least sometimes important news items were translated within one day; cf. the example quoted by A. Pokrovskij: on a German newspaper from 1644 there is a note
152 . 11 ; at the
end of the same newspaper there is another note, 12
( 1906, 15).
Unfortunately, very little is known about the p e r s o n s who compiled and
translated the kuranty. Administration records from the Diplomatic Chancellery
tell us some names, but not where these people came from. Even if an employee
at was noted as , his real name could as
well have been Hans Hansen or Jan Jansson since names of foreigners were russified almost without exceptions22. A translator for Swedish and Danish, registered
as , is probably identical with Wolf Jacob Wyborch (Amburger
1953, 318); another one, for German and Dutch is probably
the same person as Barend (Barendsen? Barendszoon?) Kgelken23 (ibid., p. 324;
Maier 1997, 18). Only in very, very rare cases do we know who made the translation of a concrete text. Since the Russian language of these translations usually is
of a very high quality (in our opinion; cf., however, Sobolevskijs verdict, quoted
above), we suppose that the bulk of the translators were either ethnic Russians
(including Belorussians) or bilinguals, e.g. descendants of foreign families living in Russia. One very famous example is , born
in Moscow 164124; his parents were the Amsterdam merchant Andrej Denisov
Vinius (Dutch spelling, according to Scheltema 1817, 270: Andries Winius) and
his German wife. Andries Winius left Holland in 1627, eventually converted to
Russian Orthodoxy and became an important adviser of the young Tsar Aleksej
Mixajlovic. His son was baptized as an Orthodox in 1655, 14 years old, and got a very good education. On March 20, 1664, he
was employed at as a translator from Dutch (
1913, 183; 1906, 127). There can be no doubt that . .
was a real native speaker of Russian25 , whereas his Dutch might not have been
as good, but he certainly understood both Dutch and German very well. Although
we do not have such a well documented biography for any of the other translators,
we suppose that many of them might have a comparable origin, which would explain these translators excellent command of Russian and, at the same time, their
surprisingly good comprehension of the foreign source language.
The translators worked not only in Moscow, but also in other places. So
for instance, in 1649, a big Russian embassy of about 100 persons stayed in
Stockholm26 for almost five months, from 5 June to 30 October, in order to settle



the problem of fugitives to the Russian heartland from Karelia and other territories
which had come under Swedish rule after the Peace Treaty of Stolbova 1617. We
find altogether 20 translations, made between June 10 and October 19, containing
the words in the short annotation which usually
precedes the news articles themselves (cf. V-K IV, most texts between No 17 and
No 44). These kuranty made in Stockholm are, by the way, n o t translations
from Swedish originals, but have their source (at least to a very large extent) in the
old Hamburg newspaper Wochentliche Zeitung27, as we became convinced when
we compared them with the collection of early German newspapers at the research
institute Deutsche Presseforschung (physically incorporated into the University
Library of Bremen). It is important to stress that these Stockholm translations
were not made by Swedes, but by translators of the Diplomatic Chancellery who
were part of this very big Russian embassy.
2.5. Some general comments about the language of the newspaper translations
The kuranty were produced for oral communication to the Tsar and the boyars, as
is proved by notes in the margins such as (V-K I, fol. 51.82; II,
99.27); (V-K V, p. 110, footnote)28. Against this background
of orality it is not astonishing that the translations reflect the vernacular language
of that period or at least some good approximation to the spoken language29.
So, explicit Church Slavonicisms on the morphological and even lexical levels are
rare, and on the syntactical level almost non-existent30. On the other hand, typical
vernacular traits are frequent; e.g., on the morphological level: genitive and locative forms of old o-stems on - (like , , , ; . . .
, , . . .) are often used; nominative/accusative plural forms
of masculine nouns in -, such as , , , appear more often in the
kuranty than in other literary relics from that time. On the syntactical level, we can
note the rare use of subordinated clauses; frequent instances of preposition repetition; the use of the accusative after verbs like , (,
, ), , , etc.31 From the
fact that some texts contain dialectal (Belorussian) spellings we can draw the conclusion that some of the translators were of West Russian origin.

3.1. The historical setting of the Treaty32

Around 1640, the United Provinces of the Netherlands had been de facto independent from Spain for several decades, but Spain had not yet recognized this



independence. So, when a large number of European states decided to seek a general and eternal peace for Christendom through conferences in the German cities
Mnster and Osnabrck, Spain and the Netherlands planned to make peace with
one another in that framework. In 1646, eight Dutch ambassadors (two for Holland and one each for the other Provinces) went to Mnster. The Dutch and Spanish signed their Treaty on January 30th, 1648. (The representative from Utrecht
refused to sign, until the States of Utrecht ordered him to do so, on April 30th.)
On May 15th, ratifications were exchanged, and the Treaty was read in public in
Mnster on the 16th33 .
3.2. The printing of the Treaty
Copies of the documents arrived in The Hague on May 18th, i.e. within two
days instead of the usual four. (The authentic papers were delivered on August
6th.) Already on the following day, May 19th, the States General issued a
Privilege (an exclusive permission to print) to their official printers, providing
of course a copy of the Treaty and related documents. Th at publication34 is the
basis of all later editions of the Treaty (up to 1998) but not of the Russian
In trying to find the source for the Russian translation published as text
58 in V-K III (pp. 161179, fols. 4798, including Preface and Procurations),
several early editions of the Treaty have been looked at, but they could not
be the text translated: single expressions, sometimes even whole sentences of
the Russian translation are lacking in these editions. Fortunately the Russian
translator mentioned the name (and address) of the printer of the source text used:

= (fol. 47). We found this to be Dordrecht, Symon
Moulaert, woonende in de Wijn-Straet and managed to locate one single copy
of that edition in the University Library of Leiden35. Moulaerts edition of
Articulen may have appeared already in February 1648. It is not titled Peace
Treaty, but Articles of the Peace . . . It does not include the Ratifications,
and there is no official privilege, but it has all the extras of the Russian
text36 , and the signature of the representative of Utrecht is lacking, as in V-K.
How the printer got his copy, we can only guess. A fact is that as early as
April 1646 worries were expressed about making too many copies of documents,
because other embassies became reluctant to discuss affairs for fear of leaking
(Vrede, 15). We think this copy, too, had been leaked. But it was t h i s
brochure that reached Russia! (We do not know w h e n or h o w it got there.
The order in the archive suggests that its translation was ready in June or July



3.3. Comparing the editions

If one compares Moulaerts edition with later ones, and with that of the authentic
manuscript copy of the Treaty in the Algemeen Rijksarchief in The Hague (the
National Archives of the Netherlands), which was published for the first time
in 1998 (after 350 years!) in Vrede (28109), one sees differences in spelling
(there was no official spelling in those days; cf. Pilger 1972, 1418), in the use
of commas, semicolons and periods, together with missing words or sentences38 .
On the whole these minor discrepancies are so numerous, that it is hard to believe
that the copyists saw the text they copied. In fact, they probably did not see it.
The easiest way to produce the quantity of copies needed, for all the ambassadors,
their advisers and the home front, was to have someone read the text aloud with
several scribes writing it down. On the other hand, the producer of the Moulaert
copy may have seen the page on which the signatures were, since those were
reproduced correctly, with initials or full first names as in the actual signatures
and with an empty space in the right place for the seal and signature of the
representative from Utrecht.
3.4. The language of the negotiations and of the documents
The talks between the Dutch and Spanish diplomats were held indifferentelijck
(indiscriminately) in Dutch, French or Latin (Vrede 1998, 15); it is likely that
one, perhaps even two, of the Spanish envoys knew or understood Dutch, and that
the Dutch, or most of them, knew all three languages (ibid.). On one occasion,
the Dutch ambassadors reported that they met Count Pearanda one of the
Spanish envoys in his carriage, while walking outside the city. He got out and
spoke to them in L a t i n about some matters (ibid.) apparently this was unusual
enough to be mentioned. The final documents were written in Dutch and French.
This suggests that the intermediate documents were in those languages, too. We
have found no evidence for documents in Latin39 .
3.5. Second-hand translation
In this paper we are concerned mainly with the Spanish Proxy. In the authentic
copy it is quoted in Spanish, whereas in Moulaerts edition it is in Dutch. Of
course the authentic version is a copy of the original Procuration sent by the
King of Spain40 . It should be accurate, but it may contain copying errors. The
Dutch version in Moulaerts brochure is probably a copy of a Dutch translation
produced in Mnster, made from the original or, much more likely, from a copy
of it. That there are mistakes in it is certain. So the Russian translation made



at and published in V-K III is presumably a translation

of a copy of a translation of a copy, with many opportunities for mistakes
occurring during the process. It seems that the maker of the Russian fair copy
misinterpreted some letters of the draft version (not preserved), causing a few
additional errors in names of persons and places; cf. section 4, notes 63, 66 and
example 8.2.
Before evaluating the Russian translation, we should try to give an assessment
of the Dutch version. When we compare the Dutch translation in Moulaerts
edition with the Spanish text in the authentic copy of the Treaty, we see that it is on
the whole a good straight translation. One clause has been garbled, some words
are missing and in some places the wording is probably not the best possible
choice. The language is in our view as normal as diplomatic language can be,
with only some unnecessary latinisms. The relations between clauses are clear
(the Procuration is basically one long sentence, notwithstanding some periods
in the Dutch translation). These observations are important because in some
cases, the Russian translators had to translate texts that were themselves quite
mediocre translations (German from Latin41 , Dutch from English or Latin42 ),
hardly understandable to anyone.

4.1. Preliminaries
In this section we try to ascertain the extent to which inaccuracies in the Dutch
version of the Spanish Proxy used as a source at have
influenced the quality and comprehensibility of the Russian text. In section 4.2
we are concerned only with direct effects of second-hand translation Spanish
Dutch Russian. In section 4.3 we will illustrate the influence of miscellaneous
errors in the Dutch source text on the Russian translation (not caused by secondhand translation). Finally we will elucidate some other problems the Russian
translator had to solve in one way or another (section 4.4). The classification of the
translation problems, above all between sections 4.3 and 4.4, has to be taken cum
grano salis since we analyse problems occurring in the same sentence together,
rather than repeating one and the same sentence in both sections.
Section 5 contains a summary and an overall evaluation of the advantages and
shortcomings of the Russian translation in comparison with the source text.
In our examples we adopt the following transcription conventions:
Spanish (S), in the authentic copy of the Treaty:
Normal: Venetian handwriting (similar to that used today).
Italics: letters not written, in abbreviations (e.g., Secretario for S.rio).



Bold: larger letters,

used for accentuation (e.g., names).

The long s ( ) has been replaced by a normal s.
Our transliteration differs from the one given in Vrede, mainly since we have
not modernized the use of the letters u and v. The Spanish text is quoted according
to the facsimile of the hand-written version printed in Vrede, pp. 99, 101, 103
(pp. 16v 17v of the authentic version).
Dutch (D):
Normal: Old Dutch blackletter print. (The authentic copy is written in old Dutch
blackletter handwriting, except for the part in Spanish.)
Italics: letters not written, in abbreviations (e.g., Majesteit for M.t .)
Sans serif: Venetian print (similar to that used today, but not itself sans serif ),
used for accentuation (e.g., names) or for writing unusual foreign words.
The long s (A, C) and the round r (E) have been transcribed by normal s, r.
Slashes are substituted by commas.
The Dutch text is quoted according to the brochure printed by Moulaert (Articulen), pp. 2022.
Russian (R): The Russian translation is quoted from the edition of V-K III43 ,
text 58. Old graphic variants that are no longer in use (like i, w, s) are replaced
by their modern graphic variants (, , ). The only exception is the letter r,
which is preserved in our transcription since its sound value at that time might
have differed from that of the letter e, at least in certain positions. Raised letters
( ) are reproduced (by italics) only in three cases:
1. If they represent a palatalized phoneme which also has a non-palatalized
equivalent, e.g. , .
2. If they represent a palatalized phoneme which does not have a nonpalatalized counterpart, but is neverless spelled with a in modern Russian, e.g.
, , .
3. If they represent a combination of two phonemes, e.g. , for
, .
All other raised letters are written on the line.
The sign h is used (according to the edition of V-K) for indistinguishable ,
in cases where both graphemes were possible during the evolution of the Russian
General: The bold numbers at the beginning of each quotation represent the folio
number of the authentic copy of the Treaty, the page number in Moulaerts edition,
or the folio number of the Russian manuscript. Numbers in brackets indicate
comments below.



We provide a (straight, not literary) translation of the Spanish quotations into

English. In those cases where there is no Spanish counterpart, or where the Dutch
text deviates from the Spanish original, we give a translation of the Dutch source
4.2. Effects of second-hand translation on the Russian text
Example 1:
S: 16v 17r . . . con los Estados . . . /o/ sus Embaxadores y Plenipoteniarios
en particular autorisados, y Deputados; (1.1) Teniendo consideraion la
sufficiencia (1.2), integridad, prouidenia, experienia, intelligenia, y Zelo
de mi seruiio y del bien (1.3) y reposso Vniuersal de la Christiandad, qui
concurren en las personas de Don Gaspar de Bracamonte y Guzman,
(1.4) Conde de Penaranda, Gentilhombre de mi Camara de mis Consejos de
Camara y Iustitia y mi Embaxador Extraordinario en Alemaia (1.5), Frai
Joseph Bergae, Arobispo de Cambray, y Antonio Brum44 , de mi Consejo
supremo de Flandes . . .
(. . . with the States . . . or their ambassadors and plenipotentiaries particularly
authorised and deputed; Having regard to the capability, integrity, providence,
experience, intelligence, and vigour in my service and for the good and
universal peace of Christendom, that concur in the persons of Don Gaspar
de Bracamonte y Guzman, Count of Penaranda, Gentleman of my Chamber,
member of my Privy Council and of my Council of Justice45 and my
Ambassador extraordinary in Germany, Brother Joseph Bergae, Archbishop
of Cambray, and Antonio Brum, of my Supreme Council in Flanders . . .)
D: 21 ... met de Staten ... oC haer AmbaAAadeurs ende PlenipotentiariAen / int particulier
gheauthoEiAeert ende Gedeputeert / (1.1) conAideratie nemende op de AuCCiAante (1.2) integriteyt
/ vooEAichtigheyt / erperientie / intelligentie ende yver van mijnen dienAt en welAtant (1.3) van
de ruAte van de alghemeene ChEiAtenheydt / die concurerF inde PerAonen van Don GaMpar
de Braccamonte eG Guzman (1.4) GraeC van Peneranda, Edelman van de Kamer van
mijnen Rade / ende van de Kamer van de JuAtitie. MitAgaders mijn AmbaAAadeur ertraoEdinaris
in DuytAlandt (1.5) / BEoeder JoMeph Bergaigne, ErtHIBiAAchop van Camerick, ende
Antonis Brun van mijnen Hooghen Raedt in Vlaenderen, . . .
R: 9091. . . . . . h
(1.1) (1.2)

(1.4) .46



. . .

(By using in this first example only typefaces similar to those in Moulaerts
brochure, we hope to illustrate possible influences of typographical details on the
interpretation of the text.)
(1.1) The Dutch text has a comma (slash) before consideratie instead of the
semicolon of the Spanish original which the printer had, and used elsewhere
in the brochure. This minor deviation in the Dutch text in its turn influenced
the Russian translator, who was confused by the punctuation in his source and
did not notice that the participles gheauthoriseert and Gedeputeert are attributes,
qualifying the noun phrase haer Ambassadeurs ende Plenipotentiarisen and
translated them as finite verbs with the wrong subject:
, I designated and gave full power, while of course the States General were
the ones to authorise and depute t h e i r ambassadors.
(1.2) The Spanish noun sufficiencia capability, suitability became an adjective
(suffisante sufficient, full, considerable, eminent) in Dutch; not very surprisingly, the same thing happened in Russian (). The semantic content
of the Russian sentence did not change radically because of this syntactic reorganisation: Considering the plenipotentiary fairness. . .
(1.3) In Dutch a preposition before welstant is lacking; presuming an ellipse
of van does not solve anything for the reader, because yver van welstant . . .
(vigour of wellbeing) makes no sense. Another grammatical interpretation
would suppose that welstant is another object of consideratie nemende; but in
that case also the wellbeing of . . . Christendom would have to concur in those
persons, which makes this interpretation unlikely.
It seems that the equivalent of the Spanish del (bien) in the Dutch version has
migrated to the next word: van de ruste (of the tranquillity) instead of ende ruste
(and tranquillity). Moreover, in Dutch (and therefore in Russian), universal
has migrated, too, from tranquillity to Christendom.
In Spanish we read about vigour o f service (de mi seruiio) and vigour o f
the good and quiet/peace (del bien y reposso) of Christendom. The preposition
de in Spanish, like in other Roman languages, has a very large range of usage, in
opposition to the Dutch preposition van.
In these lines the Dutch translator in fact did a bad job and produced something
incomprehensible (and vigour of my service and wellbeing of the tranquillity of
universal Christendom, that concur in the persons . . .). The Russian translator,
however, at least partly succeeded in restoring the intended meaning48:



by eliminating the ellipse, putting in the preposition ( . . .) which

he, too, found lacking;
by choosing the preposition o (about, concerning), which makes sense in
both parts. This choice is perhaps based on similar expressions in other texts,
where in Dutch the preposition tot (for, about, concerning) was used49 ;
by rendering welstant van de ruste (wellbeing of the quiet/peace) as
. . . (well being . . . for peace).
(1.4) The Spanish text clearly mentions t h r e e people, whereas the versions in
Dutch and Russian slightly suggest that there are f o u r. Of Don Gaspar de B.
y G., the word de remained unchanged in the Dutch version, while y was translated
as ende (and). This was highlighted by the use of Dutch blackletter type. There
is however no comma (, or /) before it, which would indicate a pause, and thus
a higher level of classification. (In the Preface to the Treaty there i s a comma in
the same name; cf. example (2.1) below.) In Russian, too, we find the Spanish de
(), and a similar impression is given by the use of instead of at least if
one presumes that the translator wished to give structure to the list by employing
(and also, and, in addition) instead of (and) before the name of the
next person50. The Dutch translation and use of typefaces apparently made the
Russian translator believe Don Gaspar de Braccamonte and Guzman, Count of
Peneranda to be two individuals51. (The fact that no function would have been
indicated for this Don Gaspar should have caused suspicion.)
(1.5) In the Spanish original, Don Gaspar de Bracamonte y Guzman is an
ambassador in Germany; in the Dutch version, Brother Joseph Bergaigne has this
capacity! The word mitsgaders, a quite strong way of saying and also, is even
preceded by a full stop so that there cannot be any doubt about the syntactic
relations. In Russian, however, the situation has been partially restored: from
the Russian translation it is clear that
(although not necessarily ; see (1.4)) is the
ambassador, since the conjunction (. . .) clearly introduces a new
person. (There was no and before Brother in Dutch or Spanish, so the translator
inserted it himself.) Perhaps someone in the translators office knew the name of
the ambassador to be Guzman or de Peneranda, or the translator guessed from
the signatures under the Treaty, that de Peneranda was the ambassador: of all the
names mentioned in this example, there we find only El Conde de Peneranda and
A. Brun.
Overall evaluation of example (1):
In this case the Russian translater had a difficult task since at some points his
Dutch colleague had done a bad job: the construction in (1.3) is not easily
comprehensible to a native speaker of Dutch, without access to the Spanish
original. Our translator solved the situation in a satisfactory way, trying to



imagine what the author had intended to say and bringing some order into the
structure of the sentence. The misunderstandings in (1.1) and (1.4) can at least
partially be blamed on the choice of punctuation mark and typefaces respectively
in the Dutch source. (1.5) is a good example of an instance where the Russian
translator eliminated a mistake made by the Dutch.
Example 2:
This fragment is n o t from the Spanish Proxy, but from the Preface to the
Treaty. However, the first expression goes back to a Spanish origin. (In Moulaerts
edition, the Preface is printed in much smaller type than the other parts of the text.)
D: (authentic version) 2r . . . de voorseyde heere Coninck [heeft gedeputeert]
Don Gaspar van Braccamonte[,] (2.1) en Guzman, Grave van Pearanda,
Heer van Aldea seca de la Frontera (2.2), Ridder van de Ordre van Alcantara
. . . Edelman vande Camer van Sijn Majesteit, van synen Rade en Camere
(2.3), Extraordinaris Ambassadeur aen (2.4) Sijn Keijserlijcke Majesteit . . .
(. . . the above-mentioned King [has deputed] Don Gaspar of Braccamonte
and Guzman, Count of Pearanda, Lord of Aldea seca de la Frontera, Knight
of the Order of Alcantara . . . Gentleman of His Majestys Chamber, of His
Council and Chamber, Ambassador Extraordinary to His Imperial Majesty
. . .)
D: (Moulaert) 2 . . . de voorseyde Heer Koninck van Spangien [heeft gedeputeert]
Don Gasper de Bracamonte, (2.1) ende Gusman, Grave van Pen[a]randa52,
Heere van Aldea, Seca, de Forteran (2.2), Ridder van de Ordre van Alcantare
. . . Edelman van de Kamer van sijn Majesteyt ende van sijnen Rade ende
Kamere (2.3), Extraordinaris Ambassadeur van (2.4) sijne Keyserlijcke
Majesteyt . . .
R: 48. . .
(2.1) (2.2) . . . (2.3)
(2.4) . . .
(2.1) In the authentic manuscript copy, the comma after Braccamonte has been
erased, but it is still visible in the facsimile. It may well be that Moulaerts
brochure was made from a copy in which that comma was (still) present. See
the possible effects in (1.4).
(2.2) The analysis of what happened with the next title is one of the strongest
evidences for our assumption that the Dutch copy used for the Moulaert brochure
was made from oral presentation and that the Dutch scribe had not seen the text
with his own eyes. The place Count Pearanda was Lord of, Aldeaseca de la



Frontera, has been misunderstood to be three places: Aldea, Seca, de Forteran.

Of course the Russian translator was misled by this. (Aldeaseca de la Frontera is
situated a few kilometres north of the town of Pearanda de Bracamonte, between
vila and Salamanca.)
(2.3) We think this shortened rendering by the Russian translator may be excused.
(2.4) Don Gaspar was a Spanish ambassador t o his Imperial Majesty (the German emperor), not o f (or f r o m), as we read in Moulaerts edition and, consequently, in the Russian translation. (This mistake in the brochure van instead of
aen may be explained as further evidence for the fact that the copy was made
from oral presentation; cf. (2.2).) It seems, however, that the Russian translator,
in choosing the prepositional construction ,
which does not allow a possessive reading, but clearly indicates direction from,
was aware of the fact that Pearanda could not be the ambassador of his Imperial
Majesty, and looked for an interpretation that would suit the facts: he interpreted
the Dutch van not as belonging to, but as coming from: the ambassador coming from (his normal post with) his Imperial Majesty53 . Such an interpretation
of van, though theoretically possible, is highly improbable in this context; it lead,
however, to a correction of the Moulaert text.
Example 3:
S: 17v . . . y assimismo de aprouarlo (3.1) y ratificarlo . . . con confirmaion de
Juramento, y todas otras (3.2) Solemnidades en tal casso (3.3) necessarias y
acostumbradas (3.4) . . .
(and also to approve and ratify it (myself) with confirmation by oath, and all
other solemnities necessary and customary in such case)
D: 22 . . . ende oock self het te approberen (3.1) ende ratificeren . . . met
bevestinge van Eede, ende alle (3.2) solemniteyten in soodanighen kas (3.3)
nodigh, ende ghewoonelijck (3.4) . . .
R: 92 . . . 54 (3.1) . . . (3.2)
(3.3) (3.4) . . .
(3.1) The Russian verb is not a felicitous translation of approberen,
a verb which describes a juridical procedure, whereas for we have
not found any such strict terminological meaning; a better choice would have
been (cf. XIXVII . (SRJa XIXVII),
vol. 19, p. 155)55. However, the case of the English verb to embrace (a person, an
idea) shows that the semantics of approve and begin to love (perhaps better:
to appreciate) are not so far apart56 .



(3.2) In Dutch, an equivalent for Spanish otras (other) is lacking; of course, the
same is true for the Russian version.
(3.3) Although r seems adequate at that time for in such case or
in such an occasion57, we also admit the possibility that the Russian translator
did not really know the unusual term kas, but chose an expression that would fit
in the context.
(3.4) The Russian translator used a finite verb form, , as an equivalent to
the Dutch adjective ghewoonelijck. We consider this solution completely adequate
and very original. The meaning become usual of the verb can
be illustrated from other sources from about the same time; cf. the following
contexts from the Moscow collection of quotations (11th17th centuries; KDRS):
( . .58, p. 175; 16441645);
, ,
[. . .] (. . ., p. 31; 1669).
Example 4:
S: 17v . . . mande despachar la pressente firmada de mi mano sellada con mi sello
secreto (4.1) y refrendada del Infra scripto [de]59 mi Secretario de Estado
(4.2) . . . = Yo el Rey = (4.4) Pedro Coloma (4.5)
(I have ordered to dispatch the present signed by my hand, sealed with my
secret seal, and countersigned with the signature of my Secretary of State . . .
= I the King = Pedro Coloma)
D: 22 . . . heb ick bevolen te depescheren het tegenwoordige met mijn handt
geteyckent (4.1), ende ghecontresigneert met de onderteeckeninghe van mijn
Secretaris van State (4.2) . . .
Ick de Koning. (4.4)
P. Coloma (4.5).
R: 92 . . . (4.1)
(4.2) . . .
. (4.4)
60 (4.5)
(4.1) An equivalent for sellada con mi sello secreto (sealed with my secret seal)
is lacking in Dutch, and so of course in Russian.
(4.2) The expression in our view
is a smart solution. We interpret here as additional signature (cf.
SRJa XIXVII, vol. 19, p. 248), i.e. countersignature. Of course the Russian
translator did not have to imitate the Dutch (and Spanish) pleonastic expression
countersigned with the signature of . . .



(4.3) Trying to make things clear, the Russian translator added the sentence
, for which there is no correspondence in
the source text.
(4.4) Yo el Rey (I the King) was the King of Spains formal signature. We do not
know what the scribe who copied the text of the Procuration for the authentic copy
meant by the double strokes on both sides61 . We have not found a reproduction of
the original Procuration as sent by the King of Spain. However, on a photograph
of the last page of the original Spanish Ratification of this Treaty, the signature
Yo el Rey ss (ss = subscripsi) appears in the middle under the last line, while the
countersignature is written in a corner at the bottom of the page (cf. Anrooy 1979,
153). In the Moulaert brochure, the signatures of the King and the Secretary are
printed with a large space between them. That space and even the full stop after
Ick de Koning was faithfully reproduced in the Russian manuscript, but both
disappeared in the printed text of V-K III.
(4.5) The translator by some means or other knew the first name of the Spanish
Secretary of State. In the Dutch text there is only an initial. (Also in the signatures
under the Treaty, the translator substituted full first names for all initials in
the Dutch source text. Th o se first names he was able to find in the document
4.3. Influence of miscellaneous errors
Example 5:
The following example is not taken from the Procuration, but from the Treaty
itself, just before the signatures.
D: (the authentic manuscript) 19r . . . in crachte van onse (5) respective procuratien . . .
D: (Moulaert) 24 . . . in krachte van oude (5) respective procuratien . . .
R: 97 . . . (5) . . .
(5) The Moulaert version had the formulation . . . by force of o l d respective
procurations. . . instead of . . . o u r respective procurations. . .. Of course,
the Russian version repeats the error of the Moulaert brochure. We think that
Moulaerts typesetter misread the word62 .
Example 6:
This passage is taken from the Dutch Proxy, n o t the Spanish (p. 2224 in



D: (the authentic manuscript) 19r . . . Godart van Reede, heere van Nederhorst
. . . Overmeer (6) . . .
D: (Moulaert) 23 . . . Godert van Reede, Heere van Nederhorst . . . Orermeer (6)
R: 94 . . . 63 . . . (6)
(6) The first r in Orermeer should be a v, as in the authentic manuscript. The
typesetter in Moulaerts printing shop apparently did not know the hamlet of
Overmeer (a few houses near Nederhorst), and misread the hand-written v as an
r (in certain handwriting of the time these were similar64 ). On the other hand,
the blackletter x differed from r only by a minute dash. While in the photocopy
we used, the letter is clearly an r, a speck of dust might have garbled it in
the copy used in Russia. In any case, the Russian translator used the letter k
in the name, not only in this place, but also in the Preface to the Treaty. The
two lists of names apparently were at least partially co-ordinated. (For the in
we have not found a plausible explanation in none of the forms
Overmeer, Orermeer, Oxermeer can the letter o be pronounced as [u].)
4.4. Other translation problems
Example 7:
This example is also taken from the Dutch Proxy.
D: 23 . . . Iohan van Mathenesse . . . hooghe Heemraedt (7) van Schielandt . . .
R: 94 . . . . . . (7)
(7) Heemraad and Hoogheemraad are (to this day) titles of members or chairmen
of a Polder Board. In those words, heem means home(stead). The Russian
translator understood Geheimraad (Secret Councillor) and translated of the
Secret Council. This is an example of the difficulties Russian translators had
with unknown foreign special terms (cf. Maier 1997, 9495).
Example 8:
S: 16v Don Phelip por la graia de Dios Rey de Castilla, de Leon, de Aragon,
de las dos Sicilias de Hierusalem, de Portugal, de Nauarra, de Granada,
de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de Minorca, de Sevilla
de Cerdea (8.1), de Cordua, de Corzega (8.2), de Muria, de Jaen (8.3),



de los Algarues (8.4), de Algecira, de Gibraltar (8.5), de las Islas de Canaria,

de las Indias Orientales y Occidentales, Islas y tierra firme del Mar Occeano
(8.6), Archiduque de Austria, Duque de Borgoa (8.7) . . .
(Don Phelip by the grace of God King of Castilia, of Leon, of Aragon,
of the two Sicilies, of Jerusalem, of Portugal, of Navarra, of Grenada, of
Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Minorca, of Seville, of
Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of
Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the East and West Indies,
[of the] Islands and mainland of the Oceanic Sea, Archduke of Austria, Duke
of Burgundy . . .)
D: 20 D O N P H I L I P S, door de gratie Gods, Koning van Castilien, van Leon,
van Arragon, van de twee Sicilien, van Jerusalem, van Portugal, van Navarre,
van Granade, van Toledo, van Valencien, van Gallicien, van Majorca, van
Minorca, van Sivilien, van Sardaigne (8.1), van Cordua, van Corsia (8.2), van
Murcia, van Jaen (8.3), van de Algraven (8.4), van de Algecira, van Gilbralter
(8.5), van de Eylanden van Canarien, van de Oost en West-Indien, van de
Eylanden ende t vaste Lant van de Oceaensche Zee (8.6), Ertz-Hertoch van
Oostenrijck, Hertoch van Borgoigien (8.7) . . .

R: 8990
(8.2) (8.3) (8.4) (8.5)

(8.6) (8.7) . . .

This long quotation is from the first sentence of the Procuration, in which the
different titles of King Philip of Spain are mentioned. This list of titles gives
many opportunities for observations about the manner in which the Dutch and the
Russian translators render different geographic names65 ((8.1)(8.5); (8.7)). (8.6)
is an example of a minor syntactic misunderstanding.
(8.1) In Dutch we find the French name of the Island of Sardinia. The Russian
translator reproduced it letter by letter.
(8.2) The letter in the Russian adjective (translation of van Corsia)
is surprising; one would have expected an instead. Although there is a distinct
in the Russian hand-written version, there may have been an in the draft version
(not preserved), so that the form might well be the result of a copying



(8.3) Jaen was transcribed as if it were a Dutch or German name, with /ja/
instead of /xa/. The Russian translator is unlikely to have known anything
about the pronunciation of Spanish names. Moreover, we have seen several
instances before where the translator has rendered names according to their
external appearance (graphematic principle) rather than their pronunciation; cf.
example (8.1) above.
(8.4)(8.5) Algraven should be Algarven, and Gilbralter should be Gibraltar
(or Gibralter) probably the printers fault. Apparently the Russian translator
did not know these regions and repeated the errors from the Dutch source text:
, .
(8.6) The Russian translator missed that van de Oceaensche Zee belongs to de
Eylanden ende t vaste Lant and interpreted . . . as a
separate title, whereas according to the Spanish original (and the Dutch version)
Philip is King . . . of the East and West Indies, [of the] Islands and mainland
of the Oceanic Sea. . . The Dutch version gives no reason whatsoever for this
misunderstanding by the Russian translator; there was no ende and in the Dutch
text (and no comma), but he has substituted the conjunction in the Russian
(8.7) The strange form Borgoigien in the Dutch version (probably a blend of the
French Bourgoigne and the Dutch Borgondien) has been rendered correctly by
. We can conclude from this felicitous translation that the region was
well known to the translator.
Example 9:
S: 17r . . . como tambien oyr loque mirare a apagar la sobre dicha larga y cruel
guerra suzitada en las Provinias (9.1) de los payses Vajos y las que de ella
(9.2) se han originado . . .
(. . . and also to hear what is suitable to pacify the above mentioned long
and cruel war aroused in the Provinces of the Netherlands and those that
originated from it. . . )
D: 21 . . . Ghelijck mede om te hooren t gunt sal strecken tot bevredinghe van de
voorschreven langhe ende wreede Oorloghe verweckt in de Provincie (9.1)
van de Nederlanden, ende de ghene die daer van (9.2) haren oorspronck
hebben . . .
(. . . and likewise to hear what will serve to pacify the above mentioned long
and cruel War aroused in the Province of the Netherlands, and the ones that
thereof have their origin . . .)
R: 91 . . .

(9.1) .
(9.2) . . .



(9.1) The Dutch Provincie (singular) should have been Provincien (plural). The
Russian translator correctly substituted the plural form, r, instead of the
(9.2) This example illustrates in an excellent way that the Russian translator did
not just translate his text word by word, but tried to make things more comprehensible than they were in his source text. Here he guessed that the Dutch expression
de ghene die daer van haren oorspronck hebben (those that thereof have their
origin) would not be readily understood, therefore he substituted the proper
Russian noun forms , for the Dutch pronoun phrases de ghene
and daer van and wrote those wars that of that war have their origin.
Example 10:
S: 17r . . . entrar en negoiaion (10.1) conferir, proponer (10.2), conuenir, Capitular y concluir vno bueno firme y inuiolable Tratado . . .
(. . . to enter into negotiation confer, propose, agree, capitulate67 and conclude a good firm and inviolable Treaty . . .)
D: 21 . . . te treden in handelinghe (10.1) confereren, proponeren (10.2), overeen-komen, Capituleren ende besluyten, een goedt vast ende Inviolabel Tractaet. . .
R: 92 . . . (10.1) (10.2) . . .
(10.1) The Dutch handelinghe (action, dealing) in this concrete situation meant
onderhandelinghe (negotiation); the Russian r is hardly specific
(10.2) From the list of terms describing the process of negotiation we see in the
Dutch (and the Spanish) version, the Russian translator missed proponeren or
is meant to be a translation of both confereren and proponeren. As
in (10.1), the translation is not specific enough. The escalation in the Dutch
(and Spanish) list of verbs, leading from the beginning of a negotiation to the
conclusion of a treaty, is not present in the first part of the Russian verb list,
whereas the end of the sentence has been translated in a satisfactory way.
Examples 11:
In the Dutch version of the Procuration, as in the Spanish original, one finds
several examples of expressions with two (sometimes three or more) synonyms
and other word-pairs. Some of them may be seen as cases of rhetorical emphasis
(like peace and tranquillity, precisely and punctually), reminding us of the
greater role of spoken language at that time, even in legal contexts; others aim



at expressing the intended meaning with more precision and at avoiding misunderstanding (like free and independent in contrast with free and unhindered
(in Art. 5 of the Treaty)). In the articles of the Treaty one sees also the pairing
of a vernacular term with its Latin (legal) counterpart. This may indicate that the
vernacular legal vocabulary was not yet firmly established.
It is clear that it was not always easy for the Dutch translator to find a good
pair of words to translate the corresponding Spanish expression, and the same
holds for his Russian colleague. It is interesting to see that sometimes the Russian
translator had l e s s difficulty than the Dutch.
The following examples are all taken from the Spanish Proxy. We indicate the
number of the Russian manuscript page for the first example on each folio, i.e.
subsequent examples are from the same folio until the next indication.
a) . . . verklaert vry ende liber te zijn . . . (declares to be free and liber (independent)) 89 . . . . . .
b) . . . te beleyden de rust ende Tranquilliteyt. . . . . . (to further the peace and
tranquillity) 90 . . . . . . . . .
c) . . . van de Onderdanen ende Inwoonderen. . . . . . (of the subjects and inhabitants) . . . . . .
d) . . . rusten van soo langen wreeden Oorlog . . . (repose from such a long cruel
war) . . . . . .
e) . . . hebbende by ghemeen ende mutuel verdragh verkosen ende beteeckent
(by common and mutual agreement/treaty having chosen and designated) . . .
. . .
f) . . . tot de Vergaderinghe ende handelinghe . . . (for the conference and negotiation) . . . . . .
g) . . . met alle authoriteyt ende volmacht . . . (with all authority and power) . . .
. . .
h) . . . gheauthoriseert ende Gedeputeert . . . (authorized and deputed) . . .
. . . . . .
i) . . . in verscheyde ende groote Negotiatien . . . (in various and large negotiations) 91 . . . . . .
j) . . . geef ick hun . . . volkomen en absolute macht . . . (I give them complete and
absolute power) . . . . . . . . .
k) . . . die . . . sullen wesen gheauthoriseert ende gheconstitueert . . . (who shall
have been authorized and constituted) . . . . . .
l) . . . van de . . . langhe ende wreede Oorloghe . . . (of the long and cruel war)
. . . . . .
m) . . . besluyten een goed vast ende Inviolabel Tractaet . . . . . . (to conclude
a good firm and inviolable treaty) 92 . . .
. . .



n) . . . te houden voor altijd, voor vast ende van weerden, precijs ende punctuelijck
sonder eenighe foute . . . (to keep forever as firm and valid, precisely and
punctually without any fault) . . .
. . .
o) . . . al het ghene dat . . . sal wesen verdraghen, ende ghecapituleert . . . (all that
will be agreed and capitulated) . . . . . .
p) . . . het te approberen ende ratificeren . . . (to approve and ratify it) . . .
. . .
In a), b) and m) the Dutch translator resorted to latinisms; his Russian colleague
had no trouble finding Russian words. (However, in (m) is not
really inviolable.)
In e) the Russian translator misunderstood the source, by . . . verdragh (this is
about the agreement to convene at Munster): the expression by common and
mutual agreement became for the general peace treaty. While the content is
true, that was not what was written. Perhaps the Russian did not understand
mutuel. The Dutch translator should not have used the word verdragh, which
in this context is readily understood as treaty; the Spanish text has concierto
(agreement, consent).
In h) the Dutch adjectives have been translated as verbs (see also (1.1) above).
In d) the Russian translator apparently forgot one expression (a real mistake); the
shortcomings in j) and k) where he probably did not find convenient synonyms
are purely stylistic and do not change the meaning. In n) the Russian translator
rendered the meaning using completely different syntax. Apparently he felt that
the Dutch verb houden could not be translated by one verb into Russian. His
r is a correct and original solution: in this context, punctually
means observing all points.
In c), f), g), i), l) and o), the Russian translator did not encounter any difficulties.
For p), cf. (3.1).

In our opinion, the Spanish Proxy is an extremely carefully translated document

a more accurate translation than those of average newspaper texts. We dare say
that it was probably a very important document because it contained, among other
things, an up-to-date version of the King of Spains full title (cf. the quotation in
example (8)), which it might be useful to have in the Tsars archive for future
needs, and also a list with names and functions of both Spanish and Dutch
statesmen, another piece of useful knowledge. And, of course, this document



about the status of the Netherlands was important in the context of growing
Russian-Dutch trade relations. So, if one considers the circumstances, e.g. the
fact that the source text was a translation with mistakes in it and that there were no
Dutch-Russian dictionaries or encyclopedias available at ,
we have to say that the translator whoever it was did an excellent job: in
some cases he eliminated evident mistakes in the Dutch source, cf. example (1.5),
where the content of the text has been corrected and the right person, Guzman de
Peneranda, is mentioned as ambassador in Germany, and (9.1), a correction of a
minor error in the source text. At other points (more often than we could mention
in this paper) he added some words in order to make the text more explicit than the
original, thereby ensuring that no misunderstandings would arise (4.3), (9.2); he
also made it more comprehensible and logical (1.3), (2.4). The solutions found by
the Russian translator in (3.4) and (4.2) resulted, in our view, in both original and
idiomatic Russian expressions. In one instance (and in the list of names under the
treaty, which, however, is not part of the Procuration) a full name was provided
(from the translators world knowledge, or from translations of other texts) instead
of the initial of the source text, so that the target was more informative than
the source; see (4.5). In one case details of layout and punctuation from the
source were faithfully reproduced in the Russian manuscript, but disappeared in
the edition of V-K (4.4). We found no instances of blind repetitions of Dutch
syntactical constructions.
Some of the mistakes committed by the Russian translator are based on
misunderstandings caused by punctuation (1.1) or use of typefaces (1.4) in the
Dutch brochure; some of them are just repetitions of the Dutch translators (or
the printers) errors, including eliminations of words and phrases, and cannot
be blamed on the Russian at all (1.2); partly (1.3), (2.2), (2.4), (3.2), (4.1), (5),
(8.4)(8.5). In some cases our translator misread blackletters (or the tiny letters
of the Preface which we could hardly decipher with our modern magnifying
glasses) in the printed brochure, thereby causing a couple of minor mistakes in
the transcription of proper names (see example 6). Some minor misspellings in
names of persons or places are most plausibly explained if we assume misreadings
of similar skoropis-letters by the scribe of the fair copy (who, of course, might
not have been identical with our translator. . .); see example (8.2) ()
and notes 63 ( ) and 66 ().
It would be very strange, however, if there were not a single mistake in a
translation of this size, for which the translator himself bears full responsibility.
We have seen such examples in (8.6) and in points d)e) of examples 11. As
we have seen in examples (3.3), (7) and (10.1)(10.2), our translator had some
difficulties with foreign and special terms and did not find Russian terminological
equivalents (which, as has been pointed out, in some cases might not have
existed). Of all these latter mistakes only one, (8.6), has some significance for



the understanding of the content of the translated text: here the Spanish King
gets a wrong title, . . . , because the translator
arbitrarily added the conjunction , which has no equivalent in the source text. We
can certainly understand (if not excuse) this lapse of attention if we bear in mind
the translators usually rather strained working conditions, as briefly described in
section 2.4 above.
At the beginning of our paper, on page 1, we quoted Sobolevskijs negative
opinion about the translators at . While we do not want
to contest that such a characterization may be appropriate for s o m e of the
translations in question, after the linguistic analysis of this concrete document
and a detailed comparison with both the Spanish original and the Dutch source
used in Moscow we must reject the general verdict presented by one of the real
giants of Russian historical linguistics. We maintain that Tsar Aleksej Mixajlovic,
for whom this diplomatic document was translated, got a Russian translation that
was just about as clear, as understandable and as correct as the version, prepared
for Dutch readers at Moulaerts printing shop68 .
1 We use the term Vesti-Kuranty (V-K) for the printed editions of the 17th-century Russian
compilations, whereas we will refer to the compilations themselves as kuranty.
2 As far as we know, the term Hybrid Slavonic was used for the first time by Mathiesen (1984, 47).
3 For a very short linguistic description of translations into Russian between 14th and early 18th
century see (1903).
4 The printed edition, however, will be available only in 2004 (at best) or 2005. Its size will exceed
that of V-K I (the largest of the existing volumes) by about 50%. (Written and oral communications by
Dr V.G. Demjanov, one of the editors.) V-K VI will also contain a voluminous appendix with mostly
German and Dutch source texts (essentially printed weekly newspapers) in transcription, identified
at (, Moscow) and in different
Western European libraries and archives, in particular by Dr V.G. Demjanov and the authors of this
5 The complete text of the Spanish Proxy, in Spanish, Dutch and Russian (including a photocopy of
the manuscript), with a translation into Esperanto, can be found in Maier, Pilger (2000).
6 In his review of V-K I, D. C. Waugh (1975, 111113) questioned the choice of materials for
inclusion in the V-K-edition: while certain reports written by agents such as Isaac Massa were
included, many interrogations ( ) of people coming from abroad were n o t.
Among the facts to be questioned in particular is the starting point of the kuranty, for which the year
1600 seems to be a quite arbitrary choice. So, for instance, a translation from a German leaflet printed
in 1542 about a hailstorm in Prussia (already mentioned in (1903, 237)) is quoted in
the p r e f a c e of V-K I (p. 10), but no reason whatsoever is given why this text is not included in the
edition itself. (Cf. also Schibli 1988, 1618.) While such an early pamphlet can be considered as an
isolated phenomenon with little importance for the history of the kuranty, some materials from the
diplomatic relations with the German Empire during the 1590s are definitely to the point; cf., e.g.,
the following quotation, printed in SRJa XIXVII (vol. 2, p. 118):
7 (. . . II, 748; 1599).
7 J. Filimonatus, an inhabitant of Swedish-held Riga, is not always mentioned as a Swedish resident.
In a letter to Prince Lev lakovskij of November 9, 1643, Filimonatus asks the addressee to help him to



get his payment from the Tsar, and he also asks for instructions regarding the question of which title he
should use, resident or commissioner: []
. . . []
. . . (V-K II, 25.124125). In another letter to the
same person, two weeks later, Filimonatus asks for money again, and for a reliable horseman who
could regularly go from Riga to Pskov at the same time as another one goes from Pskov to Riga so that
he could send fresh newspapers to the Tsar every week the idea of a permanent postal connection,
which was to become a reality only more than twenty years later: . . .


[] []

[] (II, 28.173).
8 An obvious indicator for the increasing amount of translated news from the 1640s is the fact that
the preserved kuranty for the period 16001639 make up one volume of the edition (V-K I), whereas
there are three volumes consisting of texts from 1642 to 1650 (V-K IIIV). One explanation for this
news boom can certainly be found in the revolutionary evolution of newspaper printing in Europe
at that time, combined with the extraordinary political situation at the end of the Thirty Years War,
the negotiations around the major Westphalian Peace Treaties etc.; another can be seen in the growing
involvement of Muscovy with the West.
9 Some scholars also mention postal connections with Wilno and Archangel from as early as 1665,
but most facts support Kozlovskijs view that the other connections dated from a somewhat later
period. So the first Russian postmasters contract mentions only Riga; cf. (1913, 63).
Van Sweedens contract itself was published for the first time by (1906, 2021); a more
complete transcription can be found in Waugh (1972, 510512).
10 Scheltema (1817, 231) reports that this distinguished merchant of Dutch origin established a
cloth-factory in Russia (where Dutch workers were employed), and built Russias first paper-mill near
11 At RGADA, only a few foreign newspaper items from 16601664 are still extant. From 1665, the
number increases steadily until the peak year, 1669, for which 185 German and 45 Dutch newspapers
are filed.
12 Despite official secrecy, copies of translated pamphlets and newspapers found their way into
private collections; cf. (1911, 132133); Waugh (1972, 7276 and passim; 1979, 308).
13 We are very grateful to Dr V. G. Demjanov, who helped us to decipher this note.
14 An example of a whole German newspaper from 1643 (kept at RGADA) in transcription and its
Russian translation is published in (1911, 8290). Cf. also the comparison of German
originals with their Russian translations in Schibli (1988, 85100).
15 Between Spain and the Netherlands (see section 3), not the more famous Treaty between France
and the German Empire.
16 So for the 50s and 60s (but not for the 30s and 40s) A. Pokrovskij is right when he says that . . .
, -
( 1906, 27); cf. also Waugh (1971, 343, 345).
17 For a detailed description of the foreign sources for the V-K, identified before 1988 and 1997
respectively, see Schibli (1988) and Maier (1997). By the time the latter monograph was ready for
press, in February 1997, the originals of about 600 Russian manuscript pages had been identified,
among them the exact editions used for the Russian translations of all the major peace treaties and
almost all the political pamphlets and special newspaper issues devoted to a particular event; about
half of the originals were described for the first time in Maier (1997). During the last four years a
large number of new sources have been identified; a monograph presenting the new sources (found
after 1997) is in preparation.



For the period covered by V-K IV, i.e., 16001660, there were probably no translations at
all of any p r i n t e d sources in Danish, Polish, Latin, French or Greek, only of hand-written ones;
cf., for instance, the following annotations, preceding the translations themselves:
. . . (I, 46.11); . . . (II, 16.112);
. . .
(IV, 48.1); . . . (III, 32.110). There is no such direct evidence
for any translations from Greek (or Polish), but there are some translations of letters from Greek
archimandrites to Tsar Aleksej Mixajlovic (cf. IV, texts 12 and 13), whose originals were probably
written in Greek. As to English, one printed source has been identified: text 57 in V-K III is a very
exact translation of The Kings Declaration to all his Subjects, Of whatsoever Nation, Quality, or
Condition by Charles I, written one year before his execution; for more details see Maier (1999).
19 The Russian translation is kept at RGADA, Moscow (Fond 155, 1666, No. 11, fol. 188192).
A transcription can be found in Waugh (1979, 316317). The first issue of the first p e r i o d i c a l
newspaper in the Polish language appeared in Cracow on January 3, 1661 under the long title
Merkuriusz Polski, dzieje wszytkiego swiata w sobie zamykajacy,
dla informacjej pospolitej (Prasa
polska 1976, 14); cf. the edition with reprints of all preserved items in Merkuriusz Polski Ordynaryjny
1661, Warsaw 1978. (This was the title of all subsequent ordinary issues of this newspaper, which
seems to have been in existence for a very limited period: the last known item is No 41 of July
22, 1661.) No kuranty from the year 1661 are still preserved, so we cannot tell whether the Polish
Merkuriusz was ever translated into Russian.
20 In RGADA, Fond 155, 1, 1670, No 1 ( ), there is one single
copy of O RDINARI R ELATIONES from July 22, 1670 (No LXVI); a Latin newspaper on one printed
sheet (fols. 11v ). There are no marks in the margins. Three articles have been translated: from
Malamoco June 4, Cammeco celebri Poloni Regni Castro (Kamenec Podolskij) June 13, Warsaw
June 26. The Russian translations (not yet published) are in the same Fond 155, 1670, No 8, fols. 157
161. Of course, there is no way to p r o v e that the Russian translations of these three articles were
made precisely from t h a t newspaper; the same news might have been printed in another source
as well. But the fact that the Latin newspaper was found in Moscow and that there exist Russian
translations of three articles from one and the same issue of a newspaper is very strong evidence; on
the other hand, n o o t h e r newspaper preserved at RGADA contains a n y of these news articles
(same place, same date, same content). Thus, for the first time a L a t i n original of the kuranty has
been identified.
21 For this latter type of note (which is much more rare than etc.) see, e.g., RGADAs
Fond 155, 1, 1669, No 2, B. Einkommende Ordinari- und Postzeitungen, No 143, Stck 3; No 91
Stck 3; No 92 Stck 4 etc.; the notes in the margins are immediately below the title.
22 Amburger (1953, 302) gives, among others, the following examples: Larsson ;
Klason ; Andersson ; Jransson . The same thing applies to
first names, e.g. (ibid., p. 305): Georg /.
23 With a different spelling in Scheltema (1817, 222): Barend Kogelken, des Czaren tolk.
24 The most complete biography about the Vinius family is to be found in (1913,
25 Later on, this same person translated books about geographical and historical subjects and even
became a well-known Russian author. He was in charge of the Russian post for more than 25 years,
16751701 ( 1913, 184297; about Vinius scholarly and literary works, see especially
pp. 225245). In the early 18th century he was a minister of Tsar Peter the Great (in particular, he
headed the for some time).
26 For details about the Stockholm Treaty of October 1649, see (1956).
27 Wochentliche (Dienstags-; Donnerstags-) Zeitung one of the oldest periodical German newspapers (with a lot of different names during its existence; cf. Bning 1996, 10ff.) is the one with
the highest percentage of identified originals of the Russian kuranty for the period until 1644, covered
by V-K III (cf. Schibli 1988, 85103). Its dominance even seems to increase towards the end of the
forties: about one hundred news items from Wochentliche Zeitung have been identified (but not yet
described in print) as source texts for the kuranty of the period 16491650 by one of the authors of



this paper. For the fifties essentially covered by V-K V no systematic comparison with Western
European newspapers has yet been made; for the sixties Wochentliche Zeitung seems to have lost its
formerly overwhelming domination at the Russian Court, and other newspapers gained influence, e.g.,
among German newspapers, Knigsberger Ordinari Post-Zeitung; B. Einkommende Ordinari- und
Postzeitungen; Sonntagischer (Mittwochischer) Mercurius (the two latter ones from the same company in Berlin; cf. Bogel, Blhm 1971, 1623); also Dutch newspapers seem to be more frequent as
sources than during the forties.
28 For other examples of notations about communication to the Tsar and the boyars on the kuranty
themselves, see (1906, 2829). Such notes seem to become rarer on translations from
the sixties. It is difficult to say whether the reason is that the Russian newspapers were not actually
read aloud so often at that time, or whether this point was not considered to be worth mentioning to
the same extent as before, the practice of reading having become habitual.
29 For a more detailed characterization of 17th-century newspaper language see Maier (1997,
30 Church Slavonic morphological forms seem to get somewhat more frequent in the (not yet
published) kuranty from the 1660s.
31 For a detailed description of non-prepositional verbal rection in V-K IV see Maier (1997).
A shorter version, in Russian, can be found in Maier (1997a).
32 We limit ourselves to a few remarks about the Dutch context. For general background information
about the Muscovite historical setting see, e.g., (1990), (1918 or, in
English, Kliuchevsky 1993); for Muscovite relations with the Netherlands at the period cf. Scheltema
(1817), Veluwenkamp (2000).
33 A more extensive account of the negotiations between the Netherlands and Spain, with many
references, can be found in Vrede (1998, 726). It contains facsimiles and a transcription of the
authentic manuscript copy of the Treaty, which is kept in the Algemeen Rijksarchief in the box in
which it and its ratification were presented by the Spanish delegation. (Unfortunately, the transcription
in this long expected source is n o t completely reliable; e.g., in the Procurations there is an average
of five inaccuracies per page!)
34 Tractaet van vrede, beslooten den dertichsten Januarij deses jegenwoordigen jaers 1648 binnen
de stadt van Munster in Westphalen, tusschen den . . . Prince Phillips de Vierde van dien naem, Coninck
van Hispanien, . . . ter eenre, ende de Hoogh Mooghende Heeren Staten Generael vande Geunieerde
Nederlanden, ter andere zyde. In sGraven-Hage, : by de weduwe, ende erfgenamen van wijlen
Hillebrandt Iacobssz van Wouw . . . Anno 1648. Met Privilegie. (Knuttel 5733; reprints 5734, 5735;
pirated 5736.) The same printer published also the official French version, with privilege from the
States General: Traict de la Paix, . . . (Knuttel 5737).
35 Articulen en Conditien van den Eeuwigen Vrede, Geslooten tusschen de Groot-Machtigen
Koninck van Hispangien, etc. ter eender, ende de Hoog-Mogende Heeren Staten Generael der
Vereenighde Nederlanden, ter ander zijde; onderteyckent ende bezegelt den 30. Januarij, 1648. Tot
Munster. Tot Dordrecht, Uyt de Druckery van Symon Moulaert, woonende in de Wijn-Straet, in t
Jaer 1648. (Tiele 3262). See Maier (1997, 4145). Short title: Articulen. Editions with almost exactly
the same title (Knuttel 5674, 5675) appeared under the fictitious imprint of Haest van Voortganck
(Haste of Progress), Rotterdam. (See the note under signum UB BROCH 1457 in the Groningen UL
catalogue.) They could well be pirate reprints from Moulaerts edition.
36 For example, the introduction to the Spanish Proxy is completely different and much longer than
in other editions. Apparently Moulaert used a version he (or someone else) had published earlier. Its
introduction says (in our translation): Copy of the Procuration . . . handed to the envoys . . . of the
United Netherlands, at present gathered at Munster; in which his Royal Majesty declares these United
Netherlands to be free and independent, not having any claims on them . . .. This wording indicates
publication in 1646, when the procuration was a news item in itself. The authentic copy and later
editions of the Treaty have only: Now follows the contents of the Procuration for the Plenipotentiaries
of the Lord King of Spain etc.
37 It is remarkable that the translation was filed in Fond 96, ,
in the Russian archive. Since the content of the treaty has nothing to do with Sweden, we find



the hypothesis launched by D. C. Waugh (personal communication) appealing, according to which

the Swedish resident Karl Pomerening might have been the person who brought the brochure
to . The annotation to text 58 says nothing about this issue:

(fol. 47), but for fols. 129145 (text 62 in V-K III) and 146149 (text 61)
we know from their annotations that they had been brought by Pomerening on July 23 and 28. (In
the same Swedish file, fols. 1933 are translations of Dutch newspapers brought by the Dutchman
(David Claesz?) on May 1st. Their presence in this file is puzzling, too. Had the
brochure been brought with those newspapers and did the translation simply take more time?) We do
not know what was on fols. 99128, i.e. the folios filed in the archive directly after the Spanish-Dutch
Peace Treaty, nor why these folios were not included in V-K III.
38 Even the authentic copy in The Hague (one of the four that were made: two in Dutch and two in
French) has inaccuracies; e.g., in its copy of the Dutch Proxy, for one of the envoys, no functions are
mentioned. In Moulaerts edition they appear, just as one would expect them to be.
39 The Latin edition of the Treaty, Tractatvs Pacis Inter Catholicam svam Maiestatem, et Dominos
Ordines Generales Prouinciarum Vnitarum Inferioris Germaniae . . . translatus Johanne Cools JC
. . ., that appeared in Mnster in 1648 (Knuttel 5738; Wulp 2965), was a translation of Dutch and
French documents.
Also in the Southern (Spanish) Netherlands several editions appeared, first of the Articles and later
of the Treaty. The Brussels editions of the Treaty (in Dutch: Wulp 2963, in French: Wulp 2964), like
the Latin version mentioned above, use the title His Catholic Majesty. This suggests that the text
distributed by the Spanish side used this expression for the King of Spain. (It was very common at the
time, like His Christian Majesty for the King of France.) The wording mostly used by the protestant
Dutch was de Heer Koning van Spanje (The King of Spain).
Manchester University Library has an edition in English, The Articles and conditions of the
perpetuall peace concluded between the King of Spaine, on the one partie, and the States Generall of
the United Netherlands, on the other partie, Jan. 13 [sic!], 1648, at Munster. Judging by the title and
some other details, it might well have been translated from a (Moulaerts?) Dutch edition.
40 The original Procuration is in the Algemeen Rijksarchief, together with the Treaty, but it has not
been reproduced in Vrede (1998).
41 An example for the extreme difficulties the translators from sometimes
faced is the German source text for the Russian translation of the Osnabrck Peace Treaty, Friedens
Instrument, from which an illustrative passage (although by no means the worst) is quoted in Maier
(1997, 57). It is clear that the German translator, too, had great difficulties with the Latin original
which, according to Fritz Dickmann, one of the leading scholars of the Westphalian Peace Treaties, in
its turn is sometimes ambiguous and hard to understand: Das Ende der jahrelangen und mhevollen
Verhandlungen war ein geknsteltes, wortreiches, oft verworrenes Vertragsdokument, stellenweise
gewollt unklar und widerspruchsvoll (Dickmann 19723 , 5).
42 Text 7 in V-K V (fol. 3641),

= (sic!) appears to have been translated from the Dutch edition Propositie van
de Heeren Ambassadeurs van de Republijcque van Engeland, ghedaen in haer Ho: Mo: Vergaderinge
den 30. Marty 1651. Tot Haerlem, by Iacob van Tuyrnhout . . . 1651 (Knuttel 6981; Tiele 3868).
There is no mention about the language the address was made in. The text in the brochure appears
to be a mediocre translation from an English original (or from a Latin text with many Anglicisms).
The relationship between clauses is often unclear, and more than a few expressions can be understood
only if one knows English. (Such poor quality may be the result of the pressure of time or of the
translators inexperience.) It could well be the Dutch version prepared by the English and read by
them in the session of the States. That would indeed explain why it was published without due editing,
being the text pronounced.
43 Only in a few cases did we find apparent discrepancies between the manuscript and the edition.
These instances will be mentioned below (cf. footnotes 46, 54, and example (4.4)).
44 Brum is an apparent mistake; the correct form is Brun, as in the Dutch and Russian versions.



The Dutch version has Gentleman of the Chamber of my Council, and of the Chamber of
46 In the Russian manuscript but not in the V-K-edition there is a dot (serving as a full stop? or a
comma?) after , exactly as in the Dutch version after Justitie. However, whereas the full stop in
the Dutch version (together with the use of mitsgaders, and also) has fatal consequences in the Dutch
version, the dot at the same place in the Russian version does not do much harm because of the very
limited importance of punctuation in the skoropis of the time and because of the clear structuring by
the distinguishing use of and (cf. note 50).
47 Camerick (modern spelling: Kamerijk) is Dutch and Cambray is French for the same city (now
in northern France). The Russian adjective is formed according to a
genuinely Russian word formation rule; cf. ; ;
; . (The use of two graphemes, , for the affricate [c] is
not unusual in the V-K.)
48 Regarding the translators task to render the meaning that the author intended; cf. Pilger (1993).
49 E.g., in the Dutch Proxy: . . . ende ijver t o t den dienst der . . . Nederlanden; cf. Articulen, p. 22.
50 Generally speaking, there is no clear evidence of any semantic difference between the two
Russian conjunctions and in 17th-century Russian; in many contexts they seem to be fully
equivalent. That means the translator could have used instead of everywhere, and vice versa.
We perceive, however, that in many instances this translator did n o t use and indifferently.
Almost always in this text signals another level of classification than . In the list of people
in the Dutch Proxy, appears 23 times, linking titles and occupations, and n e v e r introduces a
new person, while appears six times, of which five d o introduce new persons. In the Preface
to the Treaty, at the beginning of the brochure, there is a similar list of the envoys on both sides
(cf. the quotation from the Preface in example (2)). There we find 32 occurrences of (none of them
introducing a new person) and ten of (eight doing so). In that list too, ende is rendered by in
Braccamonte, ende Gusman (with a comma!). In both lists, there is for ende in Francoys van
Donia, Heere van Humena ende Hielsum (Squire of H. and H.). All other occurrences of in both
lists introduce a new individual. We come to the conclusion that, in this text, the translator intended
to use and to indicate different levels of classification: between the persons; between the
titles of one person; and perhaps again (but not always) between the parts of one title, in a way
like ( (1 2) ) ( (1 2) ) ( ). The question is then,
whether in was meant as a first-level or as a third-level .
(In it is definitely third-level.)
In the translation of other parts of this Treaty the word is very rare. Where it appears, there
is some kind of enumeration, e.g. in Articles 68 (about fortifications) and 72 (people), without a
second level of classification. It seems worth exploring whether the differentiating use of and
was practised more often at that time.
51 The compiler of the name index for V-K III also perceived
as being two persons; cf.: (),
, (p. 337); ( ),
(p. 339).
52 In our photocopy of Moulaerts edition, the fourth letter in Penaranda (5 point italic print!) is a
blur, that looks a bit more like an a than like an e. However, in the Procuration itself, the same name
is clearly printed as Peneranda.
53 In Courante uyt Italien ende Duytschland &c., 1645, No 26 (not in V-K) we read, that on the
23rd (of June, 1645) the Count of Pegnarada went from Antwerp to Munster for the Peace-dealings.
From that we may deduce that his post was not at the Imperial Court.
54 In the edition of V-K III, the letter r, very distinct in the manuscript, has been omitted probably
a typesetters mistake.
55 For SRJa XIXVII (vol. 12, p. 291) states only a very narrow juridical meaning:
-. .
56 The photocopy of the manuscript shows that the verb was used very consciously:
it has been written in a different hand, with a different pen, and/or in different ink in a space that had



been left open or where something had been erased or whitened out. (We see the same phenomenon in
one other place in the Procuration, at the beginning of the word among the Kings titles;
see Maier, Pilger 2000, 77; 71.)
57 SRJa XIXVII (vol. 9, p. 93) states for r, among many other meanings,
, . This meaning is illustrated by several quotations, e.g. the following from 1662:
21 , . . . (ibid.,
p. 94).
58 For bibliographical information about sources, quoted from KDRS, see XIXVII ., Moscow 1984.
59 The word de is missing in the authentic copy.
60 Some scholars have wondered who this could have been. V.G. Demjanov
suggests in his review of the monograph Maier (1997) that might be a brother of
Johannes Colom, a book printer in Amsterdam ( 1998, 178). In the name index of V-K III
(p. 342) we find the laconic information: , and a reference to the quotation
above i.e. (printed without punctuation or space) is understood as an
identification instead of two independent signatures, so Pedro Coloma, the Spanish Secretary of State,
is promoted to the King of Spain! However, the resolution of this mystery (;
1998, 178) can be found in the Procuration itself, both in the Russian translation
and in any of the Dutch or Spanish versions of
this document. (See also IBN, p. 340: coloma, pedro [16341660 madrid. caballero de santiago,
consejero real].) The large distance between the signatures in the manuscript clearly shows that
the Russian translator in contrast to the editors of V-K did not misunderstand Ick de Koning.
P. Coloma to be one and the same person.
61 In the text of the Spanish Proxy in the authentic copy there is one more double stroke. There it
seems to have a similar function to the modern : Because [. . . many points . . .] Therefore [. . .
many points . . .]. Single strokes were used to fill up lines to the right.
62 The letters n and u could be identical, and something like (on the line) could be a long s ()
or a d (, written from right to left). In that way, onse could be read oude. (Cf. Schriftspiegel, 1217;
Ouwejan 1948, 8283.)
63 The only explanation we can think of for the in is that the scribe who wrote the fair copy
misinterpreted a in the draft to be a square or lying . In the Preface to the Treaty, we read: . . .
. . . . (III, 58.49), so the draft version must have
had r. The editors of V-K III apparently perceived the in r. as the conjunction ,
since we read in the index of personal names (p. 337): , 58.49;
58.94. We do not have a photocopy of this manuscript page, but from the Dutch original it
is clear that must be part of the persons name: Heere Godert van Reede, Heere van Nederhorst.
The Russian a at the end of the name can be interpreted as an accusative form, an object to the verbs
(fol. 93)/ (fol. 48).
64 However, less often than now and in a different way; cf. Schriftspiegel (17); Ouwejan (1948, 83).
65 About the adaptation of geographical names in VK IIII in general see Schibli (1988, 268349).
Many examples can also be found in 1982 (from V-K I); 1990 (from V-K IIV and other
66 The same might be true for , where the translator might have resorted to transliteration like in r (cf. example 8.1). Since with three consecutive vowels would
be uncommon, the maker of the fair copy would not hesitate to read the as , if it looked in any way
like a .
67 I.e. formulate legally not surrender.
68 The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Professor Daniel C. Waugh for his very
valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper (although unfortunately it has not been possible to
incorporate all his suggestions into the final version), and to Brian Moon for his professional efforts in
correcting our non-native English in this paper dealing with his colleagues of three and a half centuries



Sources, dictionaries, encyclopedias
Articulen: Articulen en Conditien van den Eeuwigen Vrede . . . Dordrecht 1648 (Symon Moulaert).
IBN: Index bio-bibliographicus notorum hominum, Pars C, Vol. 39, Osnabrck 1986.
Knuttel: Catalogus van de pamfletten-verzameling berustende in de Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 1486
1853 / bewerkt, met aanteekeningen en een register der schrijvers voorzien, door W. P. C. Knuttel,
s Gravenhage 18891920.
SRJa XIXVII: XIXVII . . 125, 19752000.
Tiele: Bibliotheek van Nederlandsche pamfletten. Eerste afdeeling, Verzameling van Frederik Muller
te Amsterdam / naar tijdsorde gerangschikt en beschreven door P. A. Tiele, Amsterdam 1858
V-K I: -, 16001639 ., 1972.
V-K II: -, 16421644 ., 1976.
V-K III: -, 16451646, 1648 ., 1980.
V-K IV: -, 16481650 ., 1983.
V-K V: -, 16511652 ., 16541656 ., 16581660 ., 1996.
Wulp: Catalogus van de tractaten, pamfletten, enz. over de geschiedenis van Nederland, aanwezig in
de bibliotheek van Isaac Meulman / bew. door J. K. van der Wulp, deel 13, s.l. [Amsterdam]
Secondary literature
Amburger, E.: 1953, Die Behandlung auslndischer Vornamen im Russischen in neuerer Zeit,
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 7, Mainz, Wiesbaden, 299354.
Anrooy, F. van e.a.: 1979, Nederland in stukken. Beeldkroniek van Nederlandse archieven, Haarlem.
Bogel, E., Blhm, E.: 1971, Die deutschen Zeitungen des 17. Jahrhunderts. Ein Bestandsverzeichnis
mit historischen und bibliographischen Angaben, Band 1, Bremen.
Bning, H.: 1996, Deutsche Presse. Biobibliographische Handbcher zur Geschichte der deutschsprachigen periodischen Presse von den Anfngen bis 1815, Band 1.1, Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt.
Dickmann, F.: 19723 , Der Westflische Frieden, Mnster.
Kliuchevsky, V. O.: 1993, A Course in Russian History: The Seventeenth Century, New York.
Maier, I.: 1997, Verbalrektion in den Vesti-Kuranty (16001660). Eine historisch-philologische
Untersuchung zur mittelrussischen Syntax, Uppsala (= Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia
Slavica Upsaliensia 38).
Maier, I.: 1997a, XVII .: (
-), , 5, 87101.
Maier, I.: 1999, Pressmeddelanden till ryske tsaren under trettioriga krigets tid, Kultur och samhlle
i sprkets spegel. En esssamling frn Sprkvetenskapliga fakulteten, Uppsala, 8394.
Maier, I., Pilger, W. F.: 2000, Duamana traduko por la Rusa Caro. Pri 17a-jarcentaj nova
en Vesti-Kuranty, Lelystad.
Mathiesen, R.: 1984, The Church Slavonic language question: an overview (IXXX centuries),
Aspects of the Slavic Language Question, V. 1, New Haven, 4565.
Ouwejan Kzn., R. J.: 1948, Het Nederlandsche schrift, Amsterdam (= Heemschut-serie 59).
Pilger, W. F.: 1972, 5000 jaar spellingsmoeilijkheden, Amsterdam (= AO-reeks 1401).
originalo estas traduko c iu traduko estu re-traduko, Survoje 16 (SevaPilger, W. F.: 1993, Ciu
stopol), 1028.
Prasa polska: Prasa polska w latach 16611864 (ed. J. ojek), Warszawa 1976.
Scheltema, J.: 1817, Rusland en de Nederlanden beschouwd in derzelver wederkeerige betrekkingen,
Eerste deel, Amsterdam.
Schibli, R.: 1988, Die ltesten russischen Zeitungsbersetzungen (Vesti-Kuranty), 16001650.
Quellenkunde, Lehnwortschatz und Toponomastik, Bern (= Slavica Helvetica 29).



Schriftspiegel: Horsman, P. J. e.a. (eds), Schriftspiegel: Nederlandse paleografische teksten van de

13e tot de 18e eeuw, Zutphen 1986.
The birth: The Birth of the European Press as Reflected in the Newspaper Collection of The Royal
Library. An Exhibition Catalogue, Stockholm 1960 (= Kungliga bibliotekets utstllningskatalog
Veluwenkamp, J. W.: 2000, Archangel: Nederlandse ondernemers in Rusland 15501785, Amsterdam.
Vrede: Vrede van Munster 16481998. Tractaat van een aengename, goede, en oprechte Vrede, Den
Haag 1998.
Waugh, D. C.: 1972, Seventeenth-Century Muscovite Pamphlets with Turkish Themes: Toward a Study
of Muscovite Literary Culture in its European Setting (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
University), Cambridge, Mass.
Waugh, D. C.: 1973, (review article) Vesti-Kuranty 16001639, Moscow 1972, Kritika. A Review of
Current Soviet Books on Russian History 10, 3, 104120.
Waugh, D. C.: 1979, News of the False Messiah: Reports on Shabbetai Zevi in Ukraine and Muscovy,
Jewish Social Studies 41, 34, 301322.
, . .: 1906, ,
, ,
IV, , 1170.
, . .: 1982, - , ( -
16001639 .), . , ,
, . .: 1990, -
XVII , .
, . .: 1998, (review of Maier 1997), , 3, 177181.
, . .: 1956, 1649 , Skandinaavia kogumik/Skrifter om
Skandinavien/ I, Tallinn, 101117.
, . .: 1918, , III, .
, . .: 1913,
, 1 ( ), .
, .: 1906, ,
. . 17081719 ., , 198.
, . .: 1903, XIVXVII .
, , LXXIV, 1, 1460.
, . .: 1990, . V, .
, .: 1911, ,
, , XXXV:2, , 63135.

Department of Slavic Languages,

Uppsala University